General observation: people who are curious about history tend to read actual history books. People who are attached to history tend to read biographies and “classics” but studiously avoid developing a broader sense of context around the bits of history they valorize.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Good histories, whatever their politics, tend to humanize all actors on the stage. It’s hard to remain attached to a cultural identity once a particular set of ancients you might identify with has been humanized. You start noticing how they’re like living people you know.
Show this thread -
3 of the 4 histories I’ve read so far in my pandemic history binge hit that standard. The 4th, Arthur Herman’s Freedom’s Forge, while informative on the subject I was curious about, is not as good. Slides into near-hagiography. https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1246565978021842944?s=21 …https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1246565978021842944 …
Show this thread -
One of the best things about post-Columbian American history is that it is short enough and well-documented enough, you can humanize every bit of it. There is no confounding mist of legend and mythology to penetrate. Which is why the statues debate is so fraught here.
Show this thread -
This might be why the US is the only developed western Christian -heritage nation to be developing-world level literally religious. A source of identity sufficiently cloaked in mist to be immune from humanizing historiography.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
learning, as a way to chip away at the marble
-
a way away oh wait a minute
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.